2021-01-28-ZBA-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Tim Fallon, Upper Charles Law Group representing Nicholas and Elizabeth Warren, presented their petition. Mr. Fallon stated the Warrens are requesting a site plan which would preserve their property rights. Without any re-grading, trenching or additional weight within a critical root zone of a particular tree which straddled the property line. He then stated they are questioning if the Building Commissioner is obligated to observe Town Bylaws and discharge his duties as Building Commissioner. They understand the Building Commissioner is not responsible for enforcing these Bylaws. The issue is a shared tree between the properties. The Building Commissioner did fail to follow the order of operations. The Building Commissioner has denied the Warrens clear property rights. He then made a presentation and stated the role of the building Commissioner, discussed site plan, and discussed grade and fill in the critical root zone. David Ernst, of 1 Cooke Road, presented his petition. Mr. Ernst discussed the matter of his appeal the proposed driveway location with respect to the maple trees on either side of the driveway. He explained the dripline on trees. There is no space in-between trees in which the driveway is allowed. He referred to the Lexington Tree Manual which instructs building or other elements must be located outside of the root zone. The Building Permit is deficient because the driveway does not comply with the Tree Bylaw. The driveway must be relocated or proper tree protection matters must be provided. He requested a requirement for tree protection measures with respect to the driveway to be included in the building permit as an enforceable permit condition. Fredrick Gilgun, Nicholson Sreter& Gilgun, representing the developer of 7 Fulton Road, Mr. Orr, opposed the petitions. He stated all these issues are relate to the Tree Bylaw. Mr. Orr has made the Town and the Warrens aware of his tree proposal. The one maple tree is five separate maple trees that grew out of the same root base. It is the Tree Warden is the one who determines whether or not the trees present a hazard. The arborist has determined the trees to be removed are a hazard. The Town was made aware very early on of the removal of these trees. There is no reason why the issuance of the building permit should be overturned. Fill was brought to the property with the knowledge of the Building Inspector, it is consistent with the Towns Bylaw regarding fill. Much of what has been raised here is appropriately a private right of action. The Building Commissioner made a presentation. He stated his role is be a collector of documents. He receives the tree proposal and the tree warden takes that information and does his role. The tree warden is the enforcer and manages that process. He stated he does not enforce the tree bylaw. There was a building permit issued prior to the fill being in place. He suggested the stated concerns may be for the Tree Committee. He is confident they do a consistent, effective job of applying and managing the Zoning Bylaw. A Board Member, Norman P. Cohen, asked if the two trees in the front where the driveway is proposed are Town owned (Michael Novak, Patriot Engineering, stated they are Town trees, they are in the right of way). A Board Member, Nyles N. Barnert, questioned the landscape plan and grade (The Building Commissioner stated they are focused on the tree proposal plan. There is a plan that typically shows contours of elevations on the lot. Most often the elevations are changed on the lot). Mr. Novak stated there is proposed grading shown on the plot plan that was submitted as part of the building permit.